European Court of Human Rights: French Facial Veil Ban Isn’t Discriminatory Against Muslims

As Americans are arguing over Christian
corporations and birth control, Europeans are grappling with their
own contentious case concerning religious freedom. Today, the
European Court of Human Rights
ruled to uphold France’s ban on facial veils
, which was
instituted under Nicolas Sarkozy in 2011. Since then, hundreds of
women have been fined up to 150 euros for defying the ban,
according to The New York Times.

French Muslims protest that women wearing the full-face veil,
known as the niqab, is a part of the Muslim faith. An unnamed
24-year-old French woman brought the case against her government,
saying the law was discriminatory and, as a practicing Muslim, it
violated her freedom of conscience rights. 

French officials said the ban was needed because facial veils
presented a security risk by hiding a wearer’s identity. They also
fretted that without it, “Islamic separatism” would erode French
culture. 

The European Court of Human Rights didn’t buy the security-risk
rationale. In
a statement
 (PDF), it said that the government’s objective
“could be attained by a mere obligation to show their face and
to identify themselves where a risk for the safety of persons and
property was established, or where particular circumstances
prompted a suspicion of identity fraud.” 

However, the court also didn’t take to the plaintiff’s claim
that the ban violated her religious freedom. Because “the ban was
not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in
question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face,” the
ban couldn’t be characterized as discriminatory against Muslims,
the court said.

Rather, the niqab ban constituted “a choice of society,” and
thus banning them could be “regarded as proportionate to
the aim pursued, namely the preservation of the conditions of
‘living together’.” This is apparently what passes for “objective
and reasonable justification” in the E.U.

Since France passed the niqab ban, only Belgium has followed
suit, though numerous countries—including the U.K.,
Germany
, the Netherlands,
and Switzerland
—have debated it and/or banned it in certain
situations. These bans are sold as secularist, progressive, and
feminist. But—as Shikha
Dalma wrote here in 2010
—they rely on the same principles
driving religious fanaticism, conservatism, and patriarchal
societies: A desire to force one’s beliefs and practices on others
and an idea that women shouldn’t be allowed to make their own
choices.

Burqas and facial veils “are certainly a tool of female
oppression in Islamic theocracies where sharia law sanctions
violence against women who violate its strictures,” wrote Dalma.
“But that is not true in liberal democracies where the reason
government exists is to protect personal choices from physical
violence.”  

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1nZXjr6
via IFTTT

Risk eVIXeration Sends Stocks To New Record-er Highs

The USD is unchanged; Commodities are unchanged; and Treasury yields are up only 2-3bps… but that didn;t stop July 1st from being a banner day for US equity markets (on the back of missed PMI and ISM data). The Dow, Russell 2000, and S&P closed at record highs but sadly the Dow missed out on 17,000 by a mere 1.5 points (despite the best VIX and AUDJPY manipulation $189 billion of repo liquidity free money can buy). Stocks got their start with yet another epic short squeeze at the open then ramped higher thanks to carry to record-er highs; stalling when it seemed Dow 17,000 was elusive. VIX traded with a 10-handle once again.

 

Stocks on the day…

 

Led by a big short squeeze at the open…

 

Dow 17,000 so close…

 

And then there's this…

 

The USD was unchanged…

 

Though AUDJPY was in charge of stocks…

 

Along with VIX….

 

Treasuries crept modestly higher…

 

And commodities closed practically unchanged (despite some chopy vol intrday)…

 

 

Charts: Bloomberg

Bonus Chart: Camer-on-a-Stick +100% from IPO…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nZW2jJ Tyler Durden

Santelli Slams America’s ‘Debt-Is-Wealth’ Mentality

In American society, 'debt' and 'income' have become increasingly synonymous over the past 3 decades; but as Rick Santelli blasts (commonsensically), "they certainly shouldn't be." It appears the average joe has been led to this conclusion by the Central Banks. Rhetorically asking "where's the horsepower in the economy coming from?" Rick reflects on the auto-loan fears we discussed earlier, santelli notes that 55% of used cars (and 30% of new cars) are financed by subprime lenders… and rages, "if we continue as a country to fuel our consumerism with debt, there is no way the bond market's going to be wrong."

 

 

The bottom line, Santelli concludes,

"Until we start to get the income equation moving, the central banks can't do enough. ultimately, end game, can't fuel an economy on debt."

As we noted earlier…(via Macronomics),

"When somebody has too much debt and cannot reimburse it, how do you bail him out? Obviously by restructuring his debts, which imply losses for his creditors.

 

But when one lends him more money in order for him to pay back what he owes, he is not bailing him out but rather pushing him in a bigger hole! The game until now has been to "print" more money and to add more debt on the shoulders on the indebted ones, to gain some time in the hope that growth will resume and reduce de facto the weight of the existing debt burden and the additional new debt issued to support the initial debt troubles.

 

This is a big misunderstanding of debt dynamics and its effects on the economy. When debt becomes too big, which it is now the case in many parts of Europe, the servicing drains all the available cash flows and reduces the growth potential."




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qOh0Gn Tyler Durden

US Auto Sales Reach Highest In 8 Years

US auto makers just printed an annualized 16.98 million sales – dramatically beating expectations for the 2nd month in a row and the highest since July 2006. As we warned earlier, the reason is clear (massive extension of credit to the lowest credit quality sector of the market). With the government also taking major fleet sales and sponsoring the subprime purchasers, what more do you expect? We can only imagine the mal-investment boom that this unsustainable burst will create in the next few months – and right as the Fed’s taper comes to an end.

July 2006 highs? Indicative of economic strength and confidence going forward?

 

or did we just reach peak car sales per job?

 

Charts: bloomberg




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1kb7ibI Tyler Durden

Wondering “Why You’re Still Poor As Dow Flirts With 17,000” – Marketwatch Explains

It really doesn’t get any more ridiculous than Marketwatch’s question du jour. As for the right answer, is it “because your name isn’t Jamie Dimon”?

 

Lest someone is confused about the context, Marketwatch also helpfully explains:

 

Congratulations Fed: you can add “financial journalism” to “market” and all the other items you have made a mockery of.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1m6j0Zo Tyler Durden

“Optimism Bias” & “Nervous Stasis”; The Sell-Side Fears “It Feels Like 2007 All Over Again”

As with any drug addiction, the first step is admitting you have a problem (or waking up naked in Glasgow train station). It seems HSBC – among a number of other sell-side strategists – are starting to wake up to their undying ‘faith’ and ‘hope’ that, based on the world’s addiction to free money, there will be a return to the old normal status quo. As HSBC’s Chief economist Steophen King notes, “there is an optimism bias, largely reflecting an attachment to pre-crisis growth trends which, post-crisis, have mostly remained out of reach,” and they are finally facing up to the fact that “the world economy has succumbed to a lower structural rate of economic growth.” But it is RBS that is waving the red flag as they warn of a “sense that this nervous stasis is dulling our perceptions about risk… it feels like 2007 all over again.

As Bloomberg reports, [analysts] say they’ve overestimated global growth prospects for each of the last three years by being too upbeat after the 2008 financial crisis. They’re now taking corrective action.

“There is an optimism bias, largely reflecting an attachment to pre-crisis growth trends which, post-crisis, have mostly remained out of reach,” according to a report published last week by the team led by Stephen King, HSBC’s global head of economics and asset-allocation research. “Our latest projections are consistent with this sense of ennui.”

 

HSBC hasn’t been alone.

It was all supposed to be so easy…

The list goes on: Printing money was supposed to lead to higher inflation, yet hasn’t. A run-up in equity prices has failed to ignite economic activity, and house prices are booming even with weak inflation.

But it hasn’t worked out that way.

Behind the errors lay a reliance on “simple rules of thumb,” say the London-based King and his colleagues. Economists are suffering from a bias toward optimism that suggests economic drivers are the same now as before 2008.

 

 

Businesses are also signaling a permanent downshift in price expectations by restraining investment despite cash surpluses and cheap financing costs, said HSBC.

As they conclude…

Either the post-crisis financial hangover is longer-lasting than the majority of economists expected, or instead the world economy has succumbed to a lower structural rate of economic growth,” they said.

But if economists are waking up to the new normal, strategists are also starting to get nervous..

“Difficult to see any risks that lie just ahead” is “the way markets feel right now with spreads tight, rates low and volatility at or near record lows,” RBS strategist Bill O’Donnell says in note.

 

Sense that this nervous stasis, if you may call it that, is dulling our perceptions about risk as cash-laden global investors pile into rates and equity markets with little apparent heed paid to things like RISK-adjusted returns”

 

“Feels like 2007 all over again and no wonder many investors have simply chosen to disengage from markets as our slipping turnover reflects”

*  *  *

So who is left to tell you to buy? CNBC? Cramer? Your friendly locall asset-gatherer? The bright-white-shiny-smile-wearing long-only equity fuind manager on TV?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1m6j0IE Tyler Durden

If You’re Connected to the Internet, the NSA Always Has Ways of Spying On You

NSA Spying“The NSA has turned the Internet into a giant
surveillance platform,” declared renowned tech guru and Harvard
Berkman Center fellow Bruce Schneier at the
Cato Institute’s conference on NSA domestic spying
last fall.
There are supposed to be some limits on how much snooping the NSA
and its minions can do on Americans, but a new
analysis
by two Harvard researchers suggests that with clever
technical work-arounds combined with creative legal interpretations
the agency can brush aside even those paltry restrictions. In its
Americans
as ‘vulnerable’ to NSA surveillance as foreigners, despite the
Fourth Amendment
” article, ZDNet reports:

“The loopholes in current surveillance laws and today’s internet
technology may leave American communications as vulnerable to
surveillance, and as unprotected, as the internet traffic of
foreigners,” [Axel] Arnbak [co-author of the new paper] said.

Although Americans are afforded constitutional protections
against the US government from unwarranted searches of their
emails, documents, social networking data, and other cloud-stored
data while it’s stored or in-transit on US soil, the researchers
suggest these protections do not exist when American data leaves
the country.

By manipulating internet traffic to push American data outside
of the country, the NSA can vacuum up vast amounts of US citizen
data for intelligence purposes, thus “circumventing constitutional
and statutory safeguards seeking to protect the privacy of
Americans,” they warned.

ZDNet reports that an NSA spokesperson denied via email
that the agency “targets” U.S. persons by intentionally routing
their emails outside the U.S. Perhaps. But the

NSA’s lexicon is more than a bit artfu
l, as American Civil
Liberties Union analysts Jameel Jaffer and Brett Max Kaufman
pointed out in Slate last July. Words like surveillance,
collect, relevant, incidental, inadvertant, minimize and targeted
don’t mean what most of us think that they mean. Jaffer and Kaufman
point out that targeted surveillance outside the U.S. is not
limited to just foreigners:

The government’s foreign targets aren’t necessarily criminals or
terrorists—they may be journalists, lawyers, academics, or human
rights advocates. And even if one is indifferent to the NSA’s
invasion of foreigners’ privacy, the surveillance of those
foreigners involves the acquisition of Americans’ communications
with those foreigners. The spying may be “targeted” at
foreigners, but it vacuums up thousands of Americans’ phone calls
and emails.

In fact, the Harvard researchers observe:

A network owned by a single organization (even an organization
that is nominally “based” in the U.S. such as Yahoo! or Google) can
be physically located in multiple jurisdictions. The revealed
MUSCULAR/TURMOIL program illustrates how the N.S.A. exploited this
by presuming authority under E[xecutive] O[rder] 12333 to acquire
traffic between Google and Yahoo! servers located on foreign
territory, collecting up to 180 million user records per month,
regardless of nationality.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported last fall just

how broadly Executive Order 12333 is being interpreted
by the
NSA when it comes to spying on Americans whose internet traffic is
incidentally routed outside the country.

Given the past record of the NSA’s leadership with regard to
truthtelling,
it’s reasonable to assume that the agency is engaging in technical
hanky-panky as a way to get around the pesky Fourth Amendment
rights of Americans. Because there is no way to correct its abuses
and corruptions, it remains the case that “Secret Government is
the Chief Threat to Liberty
.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1m6etpR
via IFTTT

How T-Mobile Made Hundreds Of Millions Charging Customers For “Bogus” Services

In yet another case of corporate malfeasance (which we are sure will see heavy jail sentences and sever punishments), the Federal Trade Commission is charging T-Mobile with making hundreds of millions of dollars by placing charges on mobile phone bills for purported “premium” SMS subscriptions that, in many cases, were bogus charges that were never authorized by its customers. Content such as
flirting tips, horoscope information or celebrity gossip was charged to customers unknowingly and even when customers figured it out, T-Mobile failed to provide consumers with full refunds. Is it any wonder Telcos are doing so well?

What to look for in your bill to see if you were duped by your caring telco:

Full FTC Statement

FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills

T-Mobile Was Aware For Years that Charges Were Not Authorized by its Customers

In a complaint filed today, the Federal Trade Commission is charging mobile phone service provider T-Mobile USA, Inc., with making hundreds of millions of dollars by placing charges on mobile phone bills for purported “premium” SMS subscriptions that, in many cases, were bogus charges that were never authorized by its customers.  The FTC alleges that T-Mobile received anywhere from 35 to 40 percent of the total amount charged to consumers for subscriptions for content such as flirting tips, horoscope information or celebrity gossip that typically cost $9.99 per month. According to the FTC’s complaint, T-Mobile in some cases continued to bill its customers for these services offered by scammers years after becoming aware of signs that the charges were fraudulent.

“It’s wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The FTC’s goal is to ensure that T-Mobile repays all its customers for these crammed charges.”

In a process known as “third-party billing,” a phone company places charges on a consumer’s bill for services offered by another company, often receiving a substantial percentage of the amount charged. When the charges are placed on the bill without the consumer’s authorization, it is known as “cramming.”

The FTC’s complaint alleges that in some cases, T-Mobile was charging consumers for services that had refund rates of up to 40 percent in a single month. The FTC has alleged that because such a large number of people were seeking refunds, it was an obvious sign to T-Mobile that the charges were never authorized by its customers. As the complaint notes, the refund rate likely significantly understates the percentage of consumers who were crammed. The complaint also states that internal company documents show that T-Mobile had received a high number of consumer complaints at least as early as 2012.

The FTC has made significant efforts to end mobile cramming. In the last year, in addition to holding a public workshop on mobile cramming, the Commission has filed several lawsuits against alleged mobile cramming operations Jesta Digital, Wise Media, and Tatto Inc.According to today’s complaint, T-Mobile billed its customers for the services of these FTC defendants as well as an operation sued by the Texas Attorney General.

The complaint against T-Mobile alleges that the company’s billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged, much less by whom. When consumers viewed a summary of their T-Mobile bill online, according to the complaint, it did not show consumers that they were being charged by a third party, or that the charge was part of a recurring subscription. The heading under which the charges would be listed, “Premium Services,” could only be seen after clicking on a separate heading called “Use Charges.” Even after clicking, though, consumers still could not see the individual charges.

The complaint also alleges that T-Mobile’s full phone bills, which can be longer than 50 pages, made it nearly impossible for consumers to find and understand third-party subscription charges. After looking past a “Summary” section as well as an “Account Service Detail” section, both of which described “Usage Charges” but did not itemize those charges, a consumer might then reach the section labeled “Premium Services,” where the crammed items would be listed.

According to the complaint, the information would be listed there in an abbreviated form, such as “8888906150BrnStorm23918,” that did not explain that the charge was for a recurring third-party subscription supposedly authorized by the consumer. In addition, the complaint notes that consumers who use pre-paid calling plans do not receive monthly bills, and as a result the subscription fee was debited from their pre-paid account without their knowledge.

When consumers were able to determine they were being charged for services they hadn’t ordered, the complaint alleges that T-Mobile in many cases failed to provide consumers with full refunds. Indeed, the FTC charged that T-Mobile refused refunds to some customers, offering only partial refunds of two months’ worth of the charges to others, and in other cases instructed consumers to seek refunds directly from the scammers – without providing accurate contact information to do so.

The complaint also notes that in some cases, T-Mobile claimed that consumers had authorized the charges despite having no proof of consumers doing so.

The FTC’s complaint seeks a court order to permanently prevent T-Mobile from engaging in mobile cramming and to obtain refunds for consumers and disgorgement of T-Mobile’s ill-gotten gains.

*  *  *

Consequences? A fed-funded fine? Cost of doing business we presume…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1xcoyp0 Tyler Durden

Only Half Of Office Space Vacated Since Lehman Has Been Reoccupied

One would think that with the economy, allegedly, growing at above-trend rates as Goldman has wagered for the second time in 4 years (the first time Hatzius was dead wrong), with jobs being added at what the BLS would have the market believe is a healthy 200K+ monthly clip, and of course with the S&P500 at record all time highs now on a daily basis, that the US business services sector would be humming along nicely, with little to no slack. One would be wrong: according to the WSJ even with all this alleged economic activity and all post-Lehman job losses having now been recovered, “employers have only reoccupied about 52% of the 142 million square feet that went vacant amid the economic downturn.

The WSJ adds that the office vacancy rate remained unchanged in the second quarter at 16.8%, still near its postrecession peak of 17.6% in 2010 and well above the 12.5% rate in 2007. In other words,

So what is causing this crunch in office space demand? Well, the primary culprit is most certainly asking rent, which keep rising despite the apparent lack of demand for the simple reason that landlords can afford to keep properties empty: with record low cost of capital, it is better from a game theory perspective to ask ever higher prices instead of engaging in a cost-cutting war with competitors for marginal renters:

[R]rents sought by landlords have grown 7.2% since 2010 and 0.7% in the second quarter to an average annual rent of $29.49 a square foot, according to the Reis report, which tracks 79 metropolitan areas. Rents typically rise with modest growth, even if vacancy is relatively high.

 

 

Most markets saw some rent growth over the past year, with only three—New Haven, Conn., Buffalo, N.Y., and Milwaukee—registering small declines.

There may be other, more palatable reasons, of which the most important one is cutting on costs, and boosting productivity:

Seyfarth Shaw LLP, a Chicago-based law firm, announced in April it was moving to the Willis Tower, where it would occupy 195,000 square feet, from a nearby building where it occupies 300,000 feet, despite employing a steady number of lawyers. The firm plans to shrink workspaces, cut back space devoted to a law library, and, in a rarity for the legalprofession, it is considering taking some lawyers out of private offices and placing them in cubicles, particularly those who work part-time,said Peter Miller, a managing partner at Seyfarth.

 

“We have an obligation to our clients to reduce our overhead and be more efficient,” Mr. Miller said, adding it will save “multiple millions per year.”

And then there is the simplest possible explanation, which usually is the correct one: businesses are not operating at the same level now as they were at the last bubble peak level for one simple reason: the economy is in far worse shape than the various seasonal adjustments and “weather scapegoaters” would want people to believe.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1xcoy8y Tyler Durden

Intelligence Agencies Conducted Broad Sweep Of Warrantless Searches On Americans

The nation’s top intelligence agency revealed in a letter made
public Monday that the NSA, CIA and FBI are engaging in a large
number of warrantless searches of the content of Americans’
communications caught up in collection on foreign targets.

The letter,
sent by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to Sen.
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), also disclosed that there are large gaps in how
the government tracks searches on Americans’ communications — and
that the FBI simply does not track such searches at all.


Read more here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1o4r23l
via IFTTT